TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (11) TMI 1378
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng the material evidence filed for the sale of the casuarina trees while rejecting the said claim based on irrelevant materials and considerations? ii. Whether the Tribunal is correct in law in sustaining the entire amount of agricultural income as unexplained income even though the amount of Rs. 34,85,000/- was received in the previous year relating to the Assessment Year 2008-09 and not in the Assessment Year under consideration? iii. Whether the Tribunal is correct in law in sustaining the addition of Rs. 67,645/- based on the sworn statement while overlooking the retraction statement filed immediately thereafter? 2. This Tax Case Appeal is directed against the Impugned Order dated 20.06.2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r 2008- 09 and not in the Assessment Year under consideration? iii. Whether the Tribunal is correct in law in sustaining the addition of Rs. 67,645/- based on the sworn statement while overlooking the retraction statement filed immediately thereafter? i. Whether the Tribunal is correct in law in sustaining the assessment of agricultural income reported as unexplained income based on the enquiry report of the Income Tax Inspector which report was not provided to the appellant for rebuttal, proving and establishing the gross violation of the principles of natural justice as well as the perversity/misdirection in the decision rendered in relation thereto? 7. The facts are identical except that in the present case, the appellant has declared....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 13. The evidence which department has gathered is long after the felling of trees and sale by the appellant by placing reliance on the statement of the Village Headman. The statement of the Village Headman can at best only corroborate the stand which department based on evidence, if there were other compelling evidence. 14. It was incumbent on the part of the Income Tax Department to have summoned the said Mr.Thangasamy of Alangudi Taluk, Pudukottai District and verified and confirmed whether the said person had indeed given the statement which was produced by the Appellant and if so whether the statement given by the said person was true or not. 15. Although the department is governed by preponderance of probability and not by strict ....